Accidentally sent encrypted. now unencrypted . -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:42:27 -0500 From: avri doria <avri@acm.org> Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Hi, On Q3 i think it is reasonable to gather both primary (direct experience) and secondary (studied the instance) comments for all of the proposed facts. While no one can know the internet mental state of another, it is possible by study to gather a lot of information on the surrounding circumstance and the after effects of a instance by investigation and study. Often an outside viewer, one who is experienced - as lawyers and scholars often are, can see the experience more completely that the unschooled victim. As long as we know which are primary and which are secondary, and we know the basis, perspective, from which the fact is being described our knowledge will be increased. As group we can then parse and decide which information to use and which to ignore (as long as we have a stated reason for doing so). avri On 31-Dec-16 01:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Avri, Thank you very much for clarifications which helps. I have just a question to raise about Q 3 . Is it correct to ask X to provide the experience of Y on a given subject.My background in legal matter does not convince me that such question is right due to the fact that even if X is fully aware of what has happened to Y on that given issue ,still it is the reflection and understanding of X of Y expérience which may not reflect the actual experience of Y on that subject .Any human being from psychological point of view has different understanding and comprehension of the occurrence of an event which may not be exactly similar as the experience of another human being? I raised the same question before to the co-chairs but they did not reply me. They reply every members of CCWG EXCEPT ME . P.S. One of the co chair was publicly very aggressive with me and offended me interpreting me as shouting when mistakenly I typed in CAP for which I apologized but he did not appoligzed for his inappropriate action . To MATHIEU Please kindly read again Q 3 CAREFULLY AND ALSO REPLY TO ME. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-30 23:42 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>:
Dear Kavouss,
My argument was in favor of including question 4.
That is the question I felt was being suppressed because I believe people were afraid that the responses might point to a solution space they would prefer to avoid.
Apologies for not being able to make that sufficiently clear.
Cheers,
avri
On 30-Dec-16 16:17, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear ALL > No one wants to prevent particular solutions. We all looking for a > workable solution but not a unilateral solution > No one motivating a drive to keep you from asking > necessary questions, We also wants to raise proper questions and not > business type question but a general questions which covers the > problem of every body. > those accusing us did not have any problem at all as they are > covered by the existing Jurisdiction BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS > Pls allow others to raise their points .THERE IS NO ROOM FOR > REPRESSUION . > Pls kindly do not accuse people to delay . THE statement > "/One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide/". > IS UNFOUNDED . IRELEVANT AND ALLEGATION . > This is a global multistakeholder process and every body has the right > to raise it point .But you do not allow them by openly accuse them > delaying the process . > Those who stop sending Q4 are delaying the process. > Pls kindly understand us > Regards > Have nice evening > Kavouss > > 2016-12-30 18:28 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>>: > > > All a matter of perspective > > > On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > > +1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small > > minority is delaying us greatly. > > I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular > solutions > from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from > asking > necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay. > > One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide. > > > avri > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>> > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>> > >
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus